Trump’s Venezuela Gambit Rekindles Fears of Endless War and Executive Overreach

The sudden capture of Venezuela’s leader and his transfer to the United States has ignited a firestorm in Washington, reopening some of the most painful debates in American foreign policy: executive overreach, unauthorized military action, and the specter of yet another open-ended nation-building project.

President Donald Trump has framed the operation as decisive, necessary, and even transactional — a move he suggested would “stabilize” Venezuela while restoring American access to its vast oil reserves. But critics across Congress, the national security community, and among military veterans warn that the action bears the unmistakable hallmarks of past U.S. interventions that spiraled into long, costly entanglements.

At the center of the controversy is a constitutional question that has grown louder by the day: Can a president unilaterally depose a foreign leader and effectively assume control over another country without congressional authorization?

Congressional Authority, Bypassed

Senior lawmakers from both chambers say they were neither briefed nor consulted before the operation. Democratic members of the House Armed Services Committee argue that the administration’s actions constitute an offensive military operation — one that falls squarely under Congress’s war powers as outlined in the Constitution.

“This was not a law-enforcement action,” Representative Adam Smith of Washington, the committee’s ranking Democrat, said in a statement that circulated widely on social media. “This was regime change. And Congress was cut out entirely.”

The administration has pointed to existing indictments against Venezuelan officials as justification, but legal experts note that similar charges have existed against foreign leaders in the past without prompting unilateral military seizures.

To critics, the distinction matters deeply. If the president can justify regime change by citing pending indictments, they warn, the precedent could be global — and destabilizing.

Haunted by Iraq and Afghanistan

Among the most vocal critics are combat veterans, many of whom see echoes of the early days of Iraq and Afghanistan in the administration’s rhetoric.

The president has repeatedly suggested that the United States is now “running Venezuela,” a phrase that has alarmed defense analysts who recall how quickly limited objectives in the Middle East turned into decades-long commitments costing trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives.

“We’ve heard this story before,” said one former Army officer in a widely shared interview clip. “First it’s ‘just removing the leader.’ Then it’s security. Then it’s rebuilding. Then it’s twenty years.”

Public opinion data circulating online suggests little appetite for another foreign occupation. Veteran advocacy groups have been particularly critical of what they describe as cavalier language about deploying “boots on the ground.”

A Transactional View of Foreign Policy

What has most unsettled U.S. allies, according to diplomats and analysts, is the president’s framing of Venezuela less as a sovereign nation and more as a corporate acquisition.

In press remarks, Mr. Trump likened the removal of Venezuela’s leadership to replacing a CEO while keeping the rest of the “company” intact — an analogy that critics say reveals a dangerously simplistic understanding of state power.

The focus on oil has only intensified those concerns. Venezuela possesses the world’s largest proven oil reserves, and the president has made no secret of his desire to open them to American companies.

“If this were purely about democracy,” one foreign policy analyst wrote on X, “why does oil come up in every explanation?”

Global Repercussions and a ‘Permission Structure’

Beyond Latin America, the implications are rippling outward. Foreign policy experts warn that the operation risks undermining decades of international norms against the forcible removal of heads of state.

Russia and China, both of which have been closely watching U.S. actions, could cite the Venezuela precedent to justify their own territorial ambitions, analysts argue. Online commentary from former diplomats has repeatedly raised concerns about Taiwan, Eastern Europe, and NATO’s eastern flank.

“What message does this send,” one viral post asked, “when the U.S. claims the right to seize leaders it dislikes?”

Even America’s closest allies have expressed unease, privately questioning whether U.S. commitments to sovereignty and international law still hold.

Who Governs Venezuela Now?

Perhaps the most immediate concern is the vacuum left behind.

Despite the president’s assertions, there is no clear governing authority in Caracas recognized by Washington. Opposition figures remain divided, state television continues to broadcast, and key ministries appear intact — suggesting the regime itself has not collapsed.

“This is the classic mistake,” Representative Smith said in an interview. “You remove the head and assume the body will follow. History tells us it rarely does.”

Without a clear plan for transition, critics fear instability, internal conflict, or a prolonged U.S. presence to prevent chaos — the very scenario most Americans say they oppose.

A Defining Test for Congress

Lawmakers are now calling for emergency briefings, public hearings, and a clear articulation of an exit strategy. Some are pushing for legislation to reassert congressional authority over military action, while others warn that failure to act would permanently weaken the legislative branch.

“This is a moment of reckoning,” one constitutional scholar wrote on Substack. “Either Congress reclaims its role, or the precedent is set.”

For now, the administration remains defiant, insisting the operation was necessary and successful. But as memories of past wars resurface and international scrutiny intensifies, the question looming over Washington is no longer just about Venezuela.

It is about whether the United States has learned anything at all from the wars it once vowed never to repeat.